1. Is the Writ of Habeas Corpus under the Indian Civil Rights Act limited solely to tribal criminal proceedings instead of also including tribal civil proceedings which result in the disenrollment of life-long tribal citizens?

2. Does the combination of “disenrollment,” which is the stripping away of Appellants’ life-long tribal citizenship and the current and potential restrictions placed on Appellants, constitute a severe restraint on their liberty so as to satisfy the “detention” requirement of Section 1303 of the Indian Civil Rights Act?

3. Does the disenrollment of life-long tribal members, by itself, constitute a severe restraint of liberty so as to satisfy the “detention” requirement of the Indian Civil Rights Act?

4. Did the Appellants exhaust their tribal remedies by going through every Pechanga Tribal appeal proceeding available to contest their disenrollment?

I don’t see how this is certworthy. There’s no split in authority alleged by the petitioners (they didn’t even try to assert a split with the Second Circuit which decided a somewhat similar case (Poodry) years ago). I imagine the Supreme Court one day will reconsider the National Farmers Union tribal court exhaustion doctrine but this doesn’t seem to be a very good vehicle for that because it’s not a tribal court jurisdiction case at the heart of the doctrine. Plus, it’s an internal tribal matter with no national importance whatsoever (other than the side-show of Indian gaming wealth).

Finally, despite the dissent from District Court Judge Wilkens, I don’t think the Roberts Court is inclined to expand habeas rights in any way, let alone to benefit Indian people in this way. As Justice Holmes told Justice Brandeis, the Supreme Court is not there to do justice.

poodry v. jeffredo theres a big difference in the courts ruling here ,first under 1303 title 25 now thanks to the jeffredo v.macarro there need not be any criminal issues for the court to hear an issue under 1303. This is huge now liska v. macarro was not heard in the first round because under 1303 they needed it to be criminal in nature.liska v. macarro is still going in court now.

also they used moore v. nelson to explain detention in jeffrado under this detention requirements liska meets detention ,go figure mm?